Not surprisingly, there seems to have been a question raised about how many attended the tax protest rally in Washington, D.C. this past Saturday. The common estimate is 60,000, which is from the mainstream news media, and it’s claimed this comes from the D.C. Fire Department. I have read in several places that no agencies in D.C. do crowd estimates any longer. It came right after the attendance at a gay rights protest and the Million Man March was estimated by the U.S. Park Police to be way below what the leadership of both claimed. Unlike now, you did not hear one word of objection accusing the leadership of these two events of falsely inflating the numbers.

According to the Los Angeles Times, The Daily Mail in England reported an attendance of around a million. Click HERE for the latest article dated September 14, 2009 in The Daily Mail. There’s also a formula that the U.S. Park Police used to calculate the attendance to events taking place in the area of the National Mall. Simply put, the square footage of the Mall is known. The Park Police calculated a “standing room only” crowd where no one would be able to move, and another calculation based on a person taking up an average of five square feet. Click HERE to see the entire Washington Post article about it. Shown below are the illustrations on how they did it.
How Many People Can Fit on the Mall?
I watched the coverage of the event on C-SPAN. Every elevated camera shot showed the Mall being completely full, all the way from the Capitol building to the Washington Monument. There are also numerous photographs showing large numbers of people around the Monument, although not anywhere as densely packed as the Mall itself.

Below are a couple of excellent videos by Sophia Elena. The first one shows the crowds in and around the National Mall.
AND HEY, DID YOU HEAR about the left’s attempt to counter the tax protest march with their own march on September 13th, the very next day? No???? Probably because this is something the liberals and their media cohorts are trying to forget and keep you from knowing. The reason is it was very easy to count the attendance at their event: 175. That’s right, 175. Obama’s ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA that boasts a membership of 13 million, publicized the event. Of course it’s been pulled down off the website, but thanks to caching, one of the announcements is available by clicking HERE. In case it somehow disappears from there, here is the post:

The Details

March on Washington VENUE CHANGED! (Let’s Get It Done: Health Insurance Reform Now Events)

UPDATE: There has been a MAJOR CHANGE. Instead of walking a route, we will meet at the UPPER SENATE PARK at 12:00 noon. This area is just north of the left side of the Capitol building, across Constitution Avenue. We will support and join Americans United for Health Care and Insurance Reform (not affiliated with OFA), who has done the leg work in getting a permit to gather for the rally. The capacity for the park/rally is 2500 people, and we hope to help them reach this goal and rally peacefully. Please do not congregate at any point of the old route, or you will be at risk for gathering without a permit. This listing is for informational purposes only and is part of the wider events of several groups, (OFA and others).

Tea party expressers, move over! Those of us supporting health insurance reform will rally in Washington D.C. on Sunday, September 13 gathering at 12:00 noon in the UPPER SENATE PARK The event is one day after the tea party, so let’s show them a great turnout, just as we did to help elect the President. Let your voice be heard clearly for meaningful Health Insurance Reform Now!

Suggested optional accessories:
1) Signs! Make your own!
2) Video camera to document the event
3) Backpack or mini cooler with water and snacks
4) Portable folding chair or blanket
5) Sunglasses, sunscreen, hat, small umbrella
6) Walking map of Capitol area and comfortable walking shoes

While we protest, let’s respect our nation’s capital by obeying all directives from the U.S. Capitol Police and the D.C. Metro police, and also avoiding the following:
1) Littering or defacing the grounds of the city
2) Bringing contraband or merchandise to sell without a permit
3) Engaging in overly aggressive confrontations with those opposed to our agenda

Time: Sunday, September 13 from 12:00 PM – 5:00 PM
Host: Raymond Dalessandro
UPPER SENATE PARK, just across Constitution Av. N.W. from the side of the Capitol building (Washington, DC)

200 New Jersey Ave NW
Washington, DC 20001
Directions: Groups chartering buses must get a trip permit. Apply online at District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles (Google: District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles Trip Permit), or through the tmanetwork truck permit service (Google: tmanetwork). Coach USA (Google: Coach USA) is one of many good sources to charter a bus. A list of official bus parking locations is available on the District of Columbia Department of Transportation website (Google: District of Columbia Department of Transportation Bus Parking). Taking taxis or public transportation (buses or trains to Union Station) are also options. If you can get someone to drive you, a good dropping off point would be Union Station, or R.F.K. Stadium and take the Metro to the event.
: Join Organizing for America members across the country in sending their members of Congress back to D.C. with a clear message about health insurance reform: Let’s Get It Done!

Other Signups

137 people have signed up to attend this event.
The capacity limit is 2500 attendees.


Click HERE to read the article on Politico about Robert Reich’s call for the march, and this same article also appeared in the Huffington Post (click HERE). In addition, the event was also publicized by the extreme leftist blog Daily Kos. Click HERE to see it. On the Daily Kos, Reich stated the reason he was promoting the march: “I just want Congress to know how many Americans want universal health care.” Well, Mr. Reich, you can count on 175!

Now, here’s Sophia Elena’s report on the liberals’ response:
And one more thing. About former President Jimmy Carter’s remark that was on the news today saying that racism is linked to animosity towards President Obama? See below:

I think the fella nailed it!



Today I saw something I thought I would never see. Thousands, no MILLIONS, about 2 Million people according to ABC News and CNN, marching on Washington protesting the government’s deficit spending trillions at a time, Obamacare which will eventually eliminate private health insurance, and the resulting higher taxes as if we’re not paying enough now. I was very happy to see the turnout, and see the area from the Capitol building all the way to the Washington monument completely filled with Americans who are fed up with the government’s reckless spending. I haven’t seen anything like that since, I guess since Dr. Martin Luther King was in Washington. News reports stated that the expressways around Washington were closed due to the numbers.
People are fed up and have been for years, but are now fed up enough to push back. The American people are discovering the power they wield as voters and citizens, and they are using it.
If the Democrats in Washington want to keep their jobs, they better listen to us. The potential exists for many of them, along with any RINO’s, to be voted out in the midterm elections next year. Americans are sending a message. The message is loud and clear, and definitely represents the majority.
But this administration continues to ignore us. We all heard Obama during his speech to Congress this week make the threat that if anyone disagreed with him, he would call them out. Well, Mr. President, here we are. We’re calling your hand.
And don’t think the Obama administration isn’t in serious panic mode now. The dissention continues to grow. I said it in a previous post, and I’ll say it again: WE’RE HERE, AND WE’RE NOT GOING AWAY.

Though today’s rally was awesome, we must continue from here and keep fighting. Keep on bombarding your Senators and Representatives as well as the White House. Click HERE to get contact information for The White House and your Senators and Representatives. Tell them you’re fed up and you vote!


Take a few moments to remember what happened today eight years ago. So many lost their lives for just going to work and going about their daily routines. They nor their families had any idea that September 11, 2001 would be their last day on earth. Let’s not forget the heroes who ran to their deaths to help others. Let’s not forget the heroes on UNITED FLIGHT 93. If it had not been for their decisive action, many members of Congress would have been killed. A government shutdown like that would have been disastrous for America. There were many heroes that day. Many who put others before themselves.
Remember those we lost, but also remember the families left behind. Remember also those who servicemen and women who answered the call to keep it from happening again and their families too.


No, this isn’t about the economy or any kind of historic economic disaster like the Great Depression. I guess one could call this a great depression, but again, it’s not about economics. What I’m speaking of is Obama’s approval rating. It seems as it continues downward, it’s picking up momentum. According to all the latest polls, Obama’s approval ratings are crashing.

According to the Gallup Poll, Obama’s approval rating fell from 51% when their latest POLL published on August 26, 2009 to 50%. Gallup said if Obama’s approval rating falls below 50% before November, this will have been the third fastest decline below majority approval since World War II. The other two presidents are Gerald Ford, who fell below the halfway mark in his third month, and Bill Clinton when it took four months.
The latest RASMUSSEN POLL published September 3, 2009, shows that only 28% of voters Strongly Approve of the job Obama is doing. It shows that 39% of voters Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a -11 Presidential Approval Index. The last time I posted Obama’s ratings on August 21, 2009, it was -8. Here’s more bad news for the Obama administration: 68% believe that passage of Obamacare will increase the deficit; 47% believe their taxes will go up by the end of Obama’s term which is the highest total yet (more and more are seeing the light!); 53% disapprove of the job Obama’s doing with 47% saying they at least somewhat approve. Let’s not leave out Congress: 51% of the nation’s voters think Congress is too liberal, while only 22% think it’s too conservative. (How in the world can anyone think Congress is too conservative?)

Now for ZOGBY: according to their poll taken August 28-31, 2009, Obama’s approval rating is 42%, with 48% disapproving. Obama has lost ground with some Democrats too. Between July 21-24, 2009 and this latest poll, Democrats’ approval of Obama’s performance has dropped from 88% to 75%, liberals in general from 95% to 86%, 18-29 year-olds from 59% to 41%, and African-Americans from 83% to 74%.

Below are the results from some other major polls as published on REAL CLEAR POLITICS.

President Obama Job Approval

Poll Date Sample Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 8/20 – 9/2 53.2 41.5 +11.7
Gallup 08/31 – 09/02 1547 A 55 39 +16
Rasmussen Reports 08/31 – 09/02 1500 LV 47 53 -6
CNN/Opinion Research 08/28 – 08/31 1010 A 53 45 +8
Ipsos-McClatchy 08/27 – 08/31 903 RV 56 40 +16
CBS News 08/27 – 08/31 1097 A 56 35 +21
Pew Research 08/20 – 08/27 2003 A 52 37 +15
And now look at Congress’s job approval ratings:

Congressional Job Approval

Poll Date Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 8/6 – 8/31 29.0 59.7 -30.7
CBS News 08/27 – 08/31 26 58 -32
FOX News 08/11 – 08/12 30 59 -29
Gallup 08/06 – 08/09 31 62 -31

The Obama administration must be in panic mode right now as well as the Democrats generally. There is absolutely no good news whatsoever, and on Zogby’s site there are a couple of commenters I saw that voted for Obama that no longer support him. With these numbers, there has to be a lot of people included in the disapproving ranks that voted for Obama. Just casual observation on my part, hardly a scientific indicator, I’m seeing far fewer Obama stickers on cars around Atlanta than I did just 90 days ago. I see one occasionally now, and just three months ago I was still seeing a lot of them. I haven’t heard anyone in passing conversation at work or around town say anything about having voted for him. Considering the continued trend nationally, I think 2010 is shaping up to be a very interesting, and likely disastrous year for the Democrats, especially considering the Democrat majority Congress can’t seem to get their approval ratings anywhere within a country mile of fifty percent.


Not for the dealers anyway. Dealers’ stock of used vehicles, as common sense would have dictated, is down nationally, according to the CASH FOR CLUNKERS FACTS website. For those of you who don’t know, used vehicles traded in under this program must be crushed or shredded, completely destroyed. Therefore, lower income people have fewer vehicles to choose from, and what’s left cost more because of this program. (Cash for Clunkers Facts,Dealers are looking for used cars for their lots since inventory levels are depleted and auction prices have risen.)
This site has a forum for people to post comments about their experience with the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS aka Cash for Clunkers). One commenter, Karen Brooks, posted on September 3, 2009, the following: “Very disappointing. My car just blow a week ago and I can’t afford one of those new cars. It is very upsetting that they are not selling the perfectly good cars to the lower class that can not afford the outrages prices of used or newer cars.. Very Very upsetting to me and I am sure to a lot of people in my shoes.. Who ever thought of the idea sure didn’t do their homework for now the dealers are sitting with good cars and have cash paying customers that would buy and need cars like that waiting on the goverment to pay them for those cars. That I am sure have many years and miles to go on them. Will not go to a dealer again for any kind of car nor will my family purchase a new car again. Used dealers that still care and have decent prices are going to be getting more business now which they should for they are still for the lower class people!” Very well said. No one in Washington can fathom being lower income apparently. But, that’s nothing new.
And the dealers? Many still yet to be reimbursed for the credits of up to $4,500 per vehicle. According to an Associated Press ARTICLE by Ken Thomas posted September 3, 2009, payment is now being promised by the end of September.
And the cost to YOU and ME? A cool $2.88 BILLION dollars for 690,114 vehicles. That works out to $417,322.36 per vehicle. What were they, Lamborghinis? No, this is just an example of what happens costwise when the government gets into anything, especially private enterprise (and you STILL want these same people handling your health insurance??) The cost does not end here. This figure does not include the cost of increasing the number of people reviewing the paperwork to 5,000. No telling what the final “bill” to John Q. Workingman will be. Not that this is really a drop in the bucket compared to the record trillions of dollars already spent by this administration in far less than a year.
Like some authors of some articles I have read recently, I wonder if this program hasn’t created a small bubble that will soon burst, or at the very least deflate leaving the car makers right where they started. See this ARTICLE in the Boston Globe that starts off, “The nation’s automakers are bracing for quieter showrooms and slower sales this autumn after the case for clunkers program offered a big but unsustainable boost in August.” I also wonder how many vehicles sold under this program will be repossessed because of people racing to buy vehicles they couldn’t really afford. Maybe deja vu on the current home foreclosure mess caused by the government? And what about charities that take used cars? This amounted to a lot of vehicles, some of which would have undoubtedly gone to charity if C.A.R.S. had never existed.
There’s a good analysis of C.A.R.S. on EXAMINER.COM by Kevin Ellis. When you read it, overlook the spelling though (pet peeve of mine – why don’t editors proofread anything anymore? Most newspaper articles these days are loaded with grammatical and spelling errors.)


In light of the wave of racist accusations continuously being hurled against conservatives, and to get in a little practice for the Fairness Doctrine (though it won’t be called that when it’s implemented – but that’s another story), I decided to do a little research about “the other side of the coin.” What I found was an excellent synopsis of a (sadly) very long history of racism of the Democratic Party. Some of this was in grade school history books when I was growing up, but I’m sure it’s all been omitted now.

Be sure and read it all. It takes us right up to the present.

The Democrat Party’s Long and Shameful History of Bigotry and Racism


A common attack upon conservatives and republicans by the ultra left is to engage in what has come to be known as “playing the race card” but is more accurately described as racial McCarthyism. Hardly a day goes by without a member of the far left wing falsely accusing conservatives of racism, bigotry, and a wide array of similar nasty things. They are not only dishonest, but they often border on the absurd, as in NAACP leader and hyper bigot Julian Bond’s recent implication to his organization that Bush administration officials supported confederate slavery. Amazingly, Bond’s statements went without condemnation from the radical Democrat party or others in his organization.

Not surprisingly, in all the lies and accusations of racism by the radical left wing, the truth becomes distorted not only about the Republicans but also the Democrats who make these accusations themselves. For instance, you may or may not have heard Democrat Senator Robert Byrd’s outburst of racist bigoted slurs, more specifically the “n-word,” on national television in March of 2001. Amazingly, this incident of blatant racism on national television drew barely a peep from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Mary Frances Berry, or any of the other ambulance chasers who purport themselves to be the leaders of the civil rights movement. In contrast, the main source of well deserved criticism for Byrd’s racist outburst came not from any of the so called leaders of the civil rights movement but from from Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey (source). The race hustlers Jackson, Mfume et al turned a blind eye towards this act of racism by one of their own party, at most issuing an unpublicized slap on the wrist, or, as was more often the case, making not a peep. But where the race hustlers turn a blind eye and spew their lies, it is up to conservatives to set the record straight with the truth.
In response to the growing practice of racial McCarthyism by prominent left wing Democrats, it is necessary to expose the truth about the Democrat Party’s record on Civil Rights:


I. Acts of Bigotry by Prominent Democrats and Leftists:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Franklin Roosevelt, the long time hero and standard bearer of the Democrat Party, headed up and implemented one of the most horrible racist policies of the 20th Century – the Japanese Internment Camps during World War II. Roosevelt unilaterally and knowingly enacted Japanese Internment through the use of presidential Executive Orders 9066 and 9102 during the early years of the war. These orders single-handedly led to the imprisonment of an estimated 120,000 law abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, the overwhelming majority of them natural born second and third generation American citizens. Countless innocents lost their property, fortunes, and, in the case of an unfortunate few, even their lives as a result of Roosevelt’s internment camps, camps that have been accurately described as America’s concentration camps. Perhaps most telling about the racist nature of Roosevelt’s order was his clearly expressed intention to apply it almost entirely to Japanese Americans, even though America was also at war with Germany and Italy. In 1943, Roosevelt wrote regarding concerns of German and Italian Americans that they t0o would share in the fate of the interned Japanese Americans, noting that “no collective evacuation of German and Italian aliens is contemplated at this time.” Despite this assertion, Roosevelt did exhibit his personal fears about Italian and German Americans, and in his typical racist form he used an ethnic stereotype to make his point. Expressing about his position on German and Italian Americans during World War II, Roosevelt stated “I don’t care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers, but the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”

Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court. Roosevelt appointed South Carolina segregationist Democrat Jimmy Byrnes to the court. Roosevelt later made Byrnes a top advisor, where the segregationist earned the nickname “assistant president.” Byrnes was Roosevelt’s second choice behind Harry Truman for the VP nod in his 1944 reelection bid. Roosevelt also appointed segregationist Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the court. Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan with a notorious record of racism himself.
Hugo Black: A former Democrat Senator from Alabama and liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointed by FDR, Hugo Black had a lengthy history of hate group activism. Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920’s and gained his legal fame defending Klansmen under prosecution for racial murders. In one prominent case, Black provided legal representation to Klansman Edwin Stephenson for the hate-induced murder of a Catholic priest in Birmingham. A jury composed of several Klan members acquited Stephenson of the murder, reportedly after Black expressed Klan gestures to the jury during the trial. In 1926 Black sought and won election as a Democrat to the United States Senate after campaigning heavily to Klan membership. He is said to have told one Klan audience “I desire to impress upon you as representatives of the real Anglo-Saxon sentiment that must and will control the destinies of the stars and stripes, that I want your counsel.” In the Senate Black became a stauch supporter of the liberal New Deal initiatives of FDR and a solid opponent of civil rights legislation, including a filibuster of an anti-lynching measure. Black led the push for several New Deal programs and was a key participant in FDR’s court packing scandal. Roosevelt appointed Black, a loyal ally, to the U.S. Supreme Court. During the Senate confirmation of Black’s nomination, the issue of his strong Klan affiliations caused a public controversy over his appointment. Following the confirmation Roosevelt claimed ignorance of Black’s Klan past, though this claim was dubious at best. Black’s first Senate election, which occurred with Klan support, had been covered nationally a decade earlier in 1926. Black’s Klan affiliations were a well known part of his political background and recieved heavy coverage in the newspapers at the time of his appointment. On the court, Black became a liberal stalwart. He also continued his career of supporting racism by authoring the opinion in favor of FDR’s Japanese internment program in the infamous Korematsu ruling.
Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV: Byrd is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and is currently the only national elected official with a history in the Klan, a well known hate group. Byrd was extremely active in the Klan and rose to the rank of “Kleagle,” an official Klan membership recruiter. Byrd once stated that he joined the Klan because it was effective in “promoting traditional American values” (Source). Byrd’s choice of words speak volumes about his bigotry considering the fact that the Klan is a notorious hate group, and the racist “values” it promotes are anything but American. One of the earliest criticisms of Byrd’s Klan ties came in 1952 when he was running for Congress. Byrd responded by claiming that he had left the Klan in 1943 while noting that “(d)uring the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan.” Byrd was lying, however, as he engaged in correspondence with a Klan Imperial Wizard long after he claims to have ended his ties with the hate group.
In a letter to the Klan leadership (Source) dated 3 years after he purported to have ended his ties with them, Byrd wrote “I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.” Byrd continued his racist diatribe “It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union” and followed with a request for assistance from the hate group’s leadership in “rebuilding the Klan in the realm” of West Virginia.
Byrd’s racism extends far beyond his Klan membership. In a letter he wrote on the subject of desegregating the armed forces, Byrd escalated his racist rhetoric to an appalling level. In the letter, Byrd vowed that he would never fight in an integrated armed services noting “(r)ather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds” (Source).
Byrd’s racist opinions have shown their ugly face in his behavior in the Senate. Byrd led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, according to the United States Senate’s own website, filibustered the legislation to the bitter end appearing as one of the last opponents to the act before a coalition of civil rights proponents led by Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen invoked cloture so that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could pass. At the time, Byrd was in the the midst of a 14 hour and 13 minute filibuster diatribe against the key civil rights measure (Source). Throughout the 1960’s, Byrd was was one of the staunchest opponents to civil rights in the U.S. Senate. Byrd’s racist history drew attention recently when he went on national television and repeatedly used the n-word, one of the most vicious racial slurs in existence, in an appearance on national television. Byrd uttered the slur on Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow on March 5, 2001. Despite the appalling nature of the remark, it went largely ignored by the mainstream media and the self appointed “civil rights” leadership. Whereas a similar remark by anyone other than a leading Democrat Senator would assuredly prompt the likes of Jesse Jackson to assemble protest rallies demanding resignations, the Jackson crowd was eerily quiet following Byrd’s remarks, issuing only low key suggestions that Byrd should avoid making such bigoted remarks.
In a sickening recognition of Byrd’s appalling political career, the national Democrat party has done nothing but embrace the West Virginia senator with leadership roles and practically every honor imaginable. To this very day the Democrats call former Klansman turned U.S. Senator Robert Byrd the “conscience of the Senate.” They have embraced him as their party’s central pillar in all ways possible. Byrd has been reelected more times than any other Democrat senator, has served as a Democrat in Congress, a Democrat State Senator in West Virginia, and a Democrat State Delegate in West Virginia. Democrats have made repeatedly elected Byrd into their national party leadership and into the U.S. Senate leadership. He became secretary of the Senate Democrat Caucus in 1967, and Senate Democrat Whip in 1971. The Democrats elected former Klansman Byrd as their Senate Majority Leader from 1977-1980 and as their Senate Minority Leader from 1981-1986. Byrd was again elected Democrat Majority Leader from 1987-1988. Democrats made Byrd the chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee and President Pro Tempore of the Senate from 1989 until the Republicans won control of the Senate in November 1994. Following the defection of Jim Jeffords in June 2001, the Democrats again made Byrd the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and elected him to the highest ranking office in the Senate: the President Pro Tempore, a position which also put this former Klansman 4th in line for the presidency. Byrd lost his position when Republicans retook the Senate in late 2002, but continues to serve as one of the highest ranking members of the Democrat Senate leadership today.
Senator Ernest Hollings, D-SC: Hollings is liberal Democrat Senator from South Carolina who is also notorious for his use of racial slurs. He rose out of the Democrat Party’s segregationist wing in the 1960’s as governor of South Carolina. While in office as governor, Hollings personally led the opposition to lunch counter integration in his state. The New York Times reported on March 17, 1960 that then-governor Hollings “warned today that South Carolina would not permit ‘explosive’ manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter services.” According to the article, Hollings gave a speech in which he “challenged President Eisenhower’s contention that minorities had the right to engage in certain types of demonstrations” against segregation. In the speech Hollings described the Republican president as “confused” and asserted that Eisenhower had done “great damage to peace and good order” by supporting the rights of minorities to protest segregation at the lunch counters.
Governor Hollings’ support for segregation continued throughout his term and included his attendance at a July 23, 1961 meeting of segregationist Democrats to organize their opposition to the civil rights movement. Hollings was one of four governors in attendence, all of them Democrats. The others included rabid segregationists Orval Faubus of Arkansas and Ross Barnett of Mississippi. The New York Times reported on the meeting, noting that among the strategies discussed were using the segregationist White Citizens Council organization to mobilize political opposition to desegregation.
In more recent years Hollings, a senior Democrat senator, has made disparaging racial remarks and slurs against minorities. Senator Hollings, who was a contender for his party’s presidential nomination in 1984, blamed his defeat in the primaries by using a racial slur against Hispanics. After losing the Iowa Straw Poll, Hollings stated “You had wetbacks from California that came in here for Cranston,” referring to one of his opponents, Alan Cranston. A few years later Hollings reportedly used the slur “darkies” to derogatorily refer to blacks. He also once disparagingly referred to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition as the “Blackbow Coalition,” and called former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who is Jewish, “the Senator from B’nai B’rith.” Hollings gained international criticism for his remarks about the African Delegation to the 1993 Geneva GATT conference, where he crudely remarked “you’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.” Hollings was also the Governor of South Carolina who raised the confederate flag over the state capitol in the early 1960’s in what was considered at the time to be an act of defiance to civil rights. The press ignored Hollings and his role in the flag issue at the same time the political correctness police were smearing George W. Bush during his campaign after Bush correctly remarked that the flag was a state issue to be decided upon by South Carolina and not the national government.
Jesse Jackson: Jackson was the featured prime time speaker at the 2000 Democrat Convention. Jackson has a history of using anti-Semitic slurs and derogatorily calling New York City “Hymietown.” Jackson, a prominent self proclaimed “civil rights leader,” is himself guilty of the same bigotry he dishonestly purports to oppose.
Dan Rather: Rather, the well known television anchor for CBS, is also a liberal Democrat who has spoken at fundraisers for the Democrat party in the past. The notoriously left wing reporter appeared on the Don Imus radio show on July 19, 2001 where he was interviewed about his long term refusal to cover the Gary Condit (D-CA) scandal involving an affair with a missing intern despite the scandal’s national prominence. Rather noted on the air that CBS had basically forced him to cover the story that was on every other network and on the front page of all the major newspapers, all this after Rather avoided it for months. Rather stated on the air, refering to CBS, that “they got the Buckwheats” and made him cover the Condit scandal. The term “Buckwheat” is considered an offensive racial stereotype that stems from an easily frightened black character named “Buckwheat” on the Little Rascals comedies. It is widely regarded as a racial epithet and has long been condemned as an offensive stereotype by several civil rights organizations. In several past incidents (see here and here) the use of the epithet “Buckwheat” has recieved condemnation by the NAACP, Al Sharpton and other left wing organizations. These left wing organizations and personalities have demanded that other media personalities be fired over using the epithet, and even staged a protest at a school over the mere allegation that the racist stereotype had been used by a teacher. Yet these same liberal groups have, to date, remained completely silent now that one of their own, Dan Rather, is guilty of using the same offensive racial stereotype they have condemned elsewhere on a national radio show. It’s just more proof of how the left wingers who cry the loudest with accusations of racism against others turn a blind eye when somebody of their own left wing ideology is the undeniable culprit of a blatantly racist act or statement!
Cragg Hines: Hines is one of the most rabidly partisan DC based Democrat editorial columnists to work for a major newspaper, and he makes no attempts to hide it. To Hines, pro-lifers are “neanderthals,” as is often the case with those who differ in opinion with him. Ironically, Hines, a columnist who regularly touts himself as an enlightened progressive, is also known for racial remarks and religious intolerance. He attacked Senator Jesse Helms in an August 26, 2001 editorial with not only the usual liberal name calling, but also with a racial epithet. Hines used the racial slur “cracker” to attack Helms. He used the epithet not only within the article’s text, but he even included it in the piece’s title. In a sense of heavy irony, Hines’ article accused Helms of bigotry for, among other things, opposing liberal policies like affirmative action. He didn’t seem to object to himself for his own bigotted language in the same article. Hines has also drawn heavy criticism from Catholics including a letter to the editor from the former President of the U.S. Catholic Bishop’s Conference for his seemingly agenda-driven criticisms of Catholicism and its religious leaders, often based on little or no historical evidence, which he has expressed in numerous editorial columns.
Al Sharpton: Sharpton, a perrenial Democrat candidate and one of the rumored candidates for the Democrat’s 2004 presidential nomination, has a notorious racist past. Sharpton was a central figure who fanned the 1991 Crown Heights race riot, where a mob shouting anti-semetic slurs murdered an innocent Jewish man. Sharpton also incited a 1995 protest of a Jewish owned store in Harlem where protesters used several anti-semetic slurs. During the protests, a Sharpton lieutenant called the store’s owner a “bloodsucker” and declared an intent to “loot the Jews.” A member of the protest mob later set fire to the store, resulting in the death of seven (source).
Representative Dick Gephardt, D-MO: Gephardt, the former Democrat Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, gave several speeches to a St. Louis area hate group during his early years as a representative. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Gephardt spoke before the Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist organization, during his early years as a congressman. further reported that Gephardt had openly asked the group for an endorsement of his candidacy during one of his many visits with the organization. Gephardt has long avoided questions about his past affiliation with this group.
Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo, Bill Clinton’s former Housing Secretary and a prominent Democrat political player in New York, was tape recorded using racially inflamatory rhetoric to build opposition to a potential Democrat primary opponent while speaking to a Democrat group. Cuomo stated that voting for his rival for the New York Democrat gubernatorial nomination Carl McCall, who is black, would create a “racial contract” between Black and Hispanic Democrats “and that can’t happen.” Upon initial reports, Cuomo denied the statement but later a tape recording surfaced. Cuomo later dropped out of the race for governor (source).
Lee P. Brown: Brown, Bill Clinton’s former drug czar and Democrat mayor of Houston, engaged in racist campaigning designed to suppress Hispanic voter turnout during his 2001 reelection bid. Brown faced challenger Orlando Sanchez, a Hispanic Republican who drew heavy support from the Hispanic community during the general election. Two weeks prior to the runoff, Brown’s campaign printed racist signs designed to intimidate Hispanic voters. The signs featured a photograph of Sanchez and the words “Anti-Hispanic.” The signs drew harsh criticism from Hispanic leaders as their message was designed to intimidate and confuse Hispanic voters. Around the same time the signs were being used, Brown supporter and city councilman Carol Alvarado made a series of racially charged attacks on Sanchez, implying a desire to see the supression of Hispanic voter turnout in the runoff. Brown staffers also went on record claiming that Sanchez was not a true Hispanic. The racist anti-Hispanic undertones of Brown’s reelection bid were so great that liberal Democrat city councilman John Castillo, himself Hispanic, retracted his endorsement of Brown in disgust and became a Sanchez supporter in the final week of the campaign. Following the harsh condemnation of the racist signs and tactics, Brown purported that his campaign was removing them even though many still lingered around Houston up until the election. When election day came along, Brown placed more of the racist signs at polling places, despite his claim to have stopped using them. The large campaign billboard style election day signs featured, in Spanish, the word “Danger!” on them followed by Sanchez’s name with a large red circle and slash through it. The signs identified the Brown campaign as their owner on the bottom. Brown’s racially charged reelection effort barely squeeked by Sanchez on election day, winning 51% to 49% following a series of racially motivated advertisements in which the Brown campaign appealed to the fear of black voters by invoking images of the gruesome lynching death of James Byrd, Jr. and by attempting to pit them against Hispanics. While Brown had the audacity to declare himself a mayor for all people and all ethnicities at his victory party, many in Houston fear the racial wounds inflicted by his campaign will take years to heal.
Mary Frances Berry: Berry is the Democrat chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). She purports herself to be an “independent” in her political affiliation in order to hold her job on the civil rights commission where partisan membership may not exceed 4 for either party, but is in fact a dedicated liberal Democrat who openly supported Al Gore for president and has given a total of $20,000 in personal contributions to the Democrat Party, Al Gore for President, and other Democrat candidates over the last decade. Berry is an open racist who is affiliated with the far-left Pacifica radio network, a group with ties to black nationalist causes. Berry once stated “Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them,” indicating that she believes the USCCR should only look out for civil rights violations against persons of certain select skin colors.
Billy McKinney: Former Democrat State Representative Billy McKinney of Georgia, who is also the father of former Democrat congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of the same state. During his daughter’s failed 2002 reelection bid, McKinney appeared on television where he blamed his daughter’s difficulties on a Jewish conspiracy. McKinney unleashed a string of anti-semitic sentiments, stating “This is all about the Jews” and spelling out “J-E-W-S.” McKinney lost his own seat in a runoff a few weeks later.
The Democrat Party and the Ku Klux Klan: Aside from the multiple Klan members who have served in elected capacity within the high ranks of the Democrat Party, the political party itself has a lengthy but often overlooked history of involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. Though it has been all but forgotten by the media, the Democrat National Convention of 1924 was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the “Klanbake convention” at the time, the 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was dominated by a platform dispute surrounding the Ku Klux Klan. A minority of the delegates to the convention attempted to condemn the hate group in the party’s platform, but found their proposal shot down by Klan supporters within the party. As delegates inside the convention voted in the Klan’s favor, the Klan itself mobilized a celebratory rally outside. On July 4, 1924 one of the largest Klan gatherings ever occurred outside the convention on a field in nearby New Jersey. The event was marked by speakers spewing racial hatred, celebrations of their platform victory in the Democrat Convention, and ended in a cross burning.


II. Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement:

A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960’s civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.
Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:
– Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
– J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
– Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
– Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
– Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore

The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:

– Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
– Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
– Holland and Smathers of Florida
– Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
– Ellender and Long of Louisiana
– Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
– Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
– Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
– Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
– H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
– R. Byrd of West Virginia

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.
It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!” (Full text of speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower.
Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats:
– Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton’s political heroes
– George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama
– Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia
The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of “white primaries” unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order. After Nixon v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party’s individual executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known as the “Jaybird system” which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries. In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat’s “white primary” system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat’s white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially unconstitutional.
Hispanics in South Texas were treated especially poorly by the Democrat Party, which relied heavily on a system of political bosses to coerce and intimidate Hispanics into voting for Democrat primary candidates of choice. Though coercion is illegal, this system, known as the Patron system, is still in use to this day by local Democrat parties in some heavy Hispanic communities of the southwest.


The next time Democrats take to the national airwaves to dishonestly accuse Republicans of racial hatred, remember who the historical record up until this very day points to as the real bigots: The Democrat Party. In all possible ways, the Democrat Party is built around the pillars of ultra leftists, many of whom are known participants in racism and/or affiliates of racist hate groups. Consider the Democrat Party of today’s heroes and leaders:
– Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat icon and orchestrator of Japanese Internment
– Ex-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, former affiliate of a St. Louis area racist group
– Ex-Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klansman known for making bigoted slurs on national television
– Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democrat keynote speaker and race hustler known for making anti-Semitic slurs
– Rev. Al Sharpten, Democrat activist and perennial candidate and race hustler known inciting anti-Semitic violence in New York City
– Sen. Ernest Hollings, leading Democrat Senator known for use of racial slurs against several minority groups
– Lee P. Brown, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat mayor of Houston who won reelection using racial intimidation against Hispanic voters
– Andrew Cuomo, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat candidate for NY Governor who made racist statements about a black opponent.
– Dan Rather, Democrat CBS news anchor and editorialist known for using anti-black racial epithets on a national radio broadcast
– Donna Brazile, former Gore campaign manager known for making anti-white racial attacks. Brazile has also worked for Jackson, Gephardt, and Michael Dukakis
The simple truth is that the Democrat Party’s history during this century is one closely aligned to bigotry in a record stemming largely out of the liberal New Deal era up until the modern day. Bigots are at the center of the Democrat party’s current leadership and role models. And in a striking display of hypocrisy, many of the same Democrats who dishonestly shout accusations of “bigotry” at conservatives are practicing bigots of the most disgusting and disreputable kind themselves.

2001, The Capitalist Conservative Republican Homepage. All Rights Reserved.

I despise true racism and racist behavior no matter what the source. There is a difference between what I call “true racism” and flinging racist accusations when all else fails. A charge of “racism” or “racist” is the one thing that a person can be accused of in todays world with absolutely no documentation whatsoever, and it will be believed by many. The news media is probably the worst offender as anything racist related gets ratings and sells newspapers.

If I were to stoop to the level of racist people, I could find plenty of reason to hate whites, blacks, you name it. I have a Native American ancestry and many horrible and despicable things were done to Native American people throughout American history over land and gold. Tens of thousands of Native American men, women, and children were slaughtered. Reasons to hate? Oh yeah. But that doesn’t make it right.

I do not appreciate the stereotyping of conservatives as being racist by the liberal left. For the record, I am a Bible-believing Christian, conservative, and if you’re looking for racism, you won’t find it here. My parents raised me better.


The article below came from ONE NEWS NOW and tells about how a court ordered a ten-year-old girl to go to public school rather than continue to be home-schooled.
New Hampshire Court orders Christian homeschooled girl to attend public school
Pete Chagnon – OneNewsNow – 8/26/2009 4:45:00 PM
Updated 8/27/2009 3:00 PM (Central)

A Christian homeschool girl in New Hampshire has been ordered into government-run public school for having “sincerely held” religious beliefs — and the Alliance Defense Fund is troubled by the ruling.

The case involves divorced couple Martin Kurowski and Brenda Voydatch and their 10-year-old daughter, Amanda. The couple split in 1999 when they were living in Massachusetts, and the proceedings moved to New Hampshire after Voydatch relocated to that state with her daughter in 2002.
Although Voydatch has primary custody over Amanda, both parents agreed to a parenting plan that included joint decision-making responsibility. A court-appointed guardian served as a mediator.
A source of contention between the parents has been the mother’ court.
The situation was then analyzed by the court-appointed guardian, who made a recommendation to the court. During the evaluation process it was determined that
Amanda was excelling in her schooling and used curriculum that was approved by her school district. The curriculum used in her home schooling was created by certified teachers, and Amanda routinely took standardized tests.
Furthermore, Amanda attended her local public school to take art, Spanish, and P.E. classes. Her public school instructors also commented on the fact that Amanda was well-rounded in her social skills. But a sticking point arose concerning Voydatch’s Christian faith.
The court order stated: “According to the guardian ad litem’s further report and testimony, the counselor found Amanda to lack some youthful characteristics. She appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith.(It’s called backbone, something government, especially politicians, hate in the citizenry.) The guardian noted that during a counseling session, Amanda tried to witness to the counselor and appeared “visibly upset” when the counselor purposefully did not pay attention.
The guardian also noted that Amanda’s relationship with her father suffered because she did not think he loved her as much as he said he did due to the fact that he refused to “adopt her religious beliefs.”
According to the court order, the guardian concluded that Amanda’s “interests, and particularly her intellectual and emotional development, would be best served by exposure to a public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and…Amanda would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior. NOTE: “Different points of view” translates to “points of view approved by the government”. Needing exposure to a “group learning situation” is completely invalidated by the fact that she attended public school for three classes. The problem is that she’s a Christian.
Story continues below ——————————————————————————–
What is the most important fundamental right or freedom being denied
by forcing this student to attend a government-run, public school?
Vote in our poll
——————————————————————————–Furthermore the court order states that despite Amanda’s mother insisting that her daughter’s religious beliefs were her own, “it would be remarkable if a ten-year-old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of all her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view.”
NOTE: I certainly won’t “consider adopting any other religous point of view.” Neither do the Islamics. Their religion teaches them to kill anyone who leaves Islam or is not Islamic. But I guess that’s OK. Although the court noted that it “is extremely reluctant to impose on parents a decision about a child’s education,” it ruled that Amanda must attend public school.
Alliance Defense Fund-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons has filed a motion to reconsider. He says this ruling is dangerous to home schoolers because it will set a precedent for other cases.
“Every time you have a court order that uses a wrong standard or misapplies constitutional law, everyone’s rights are eventually at stake,” the attorney explains. “Because what happens with precedent is it gets expanded — it gets cited in other cases.”
Simmons believes this case goes beyond the initial divorce and custody battle with this ruling because the standard used in the decision contained in the court order is troubling. He contends that the child’s religion should not have played a role in the decision, and that the court should have focused solely on the academic merits of Amanda’s education which proved to be excellent.
I agree with Mr. Simmons. This whole thing went far beyond the merits of the case. The girls religious beliefs should never have entered into it. The academic merits should have been the only thing considered, and since she was excelling beyond full-time public school students, there should not have been a problem. Mr. Simmons is correct in that when such a mishandled ruling is made, the case is used as a precedent and its scope always gets expanded. So, is a parent’s option to home-school their child in danger? Yes, it most certainly is. If Mr. Simmons is unsuccessful in his appeal, it will be one more freedom we will have lost.
Other than discriminating against her for her religiious beliefs, I think it’s another case of a home schooled child putting the heavily funded government school system with degreed professionals to shame.

What’s coming is home-schooling your child will be illegal at some point. The government does not want a child to be educated without government influence. The government and pro-public education special interest groups have been very successful in spreading many myths and outright lies about home-schooled children to the point that people look at you strangely many times if you say anything about it. Home-schooled children are looked upon as social and psychological misfits, because after all, the government knows better how to take care of your child than you do.